DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:97 of 2009 Date of Inst: 20.01.2009 Date of Decision:02.06.2010 Shiv Kumar Joshi s/o Late Shri Banarsi Dass r/o Flat No.203, GH-39, The Mayur Cooperative Society, Sector 20, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Chief Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, Pension Cell, 5 Neta Ji Subhash Road, Kolkatta-700 001 through its Manager Incharge. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Munish Goel, Adv. for complainant Sh.D.R.Bansal, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Shiv Kumar Joshi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to:- i) Release up-to-date pension and further ensure release of the same well in time. ii) Pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation 2. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he retired as Manager from OP-Company on 31.01.2003. He was covered under the pension scheme run by OP-Company. OP-Company used to deduct the contribution for repayment of pension and deposited the same with the LIC of India as per the arrangement between them. According to the complainant, he was receiving pension from time to time but since 01.03.2008 he did not receive the advance postdated pension cheques from OP. On 22.05.2008, the complainant made a representation to this effect which was followed by representations dated 01.09.2008, 07.10.2008 and 15.10.2008. Thereafter, he received a cheque dated 17.10.2008 for Rs.54,664/- and that too payable at Calcutta. According to the complainant, as per provision of pension scheme, OP-Company is under obligation to pay pension cheques payable at par and that too postdated cheques. It has further been pleaded that the amount of Rs.54,664/- was for period from 01.03.08 to 01.06.08 and pension for the month of July and August, 2008 was not paid. The complainant wrote representation dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure C-6) to this effect to OPs but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant received letter dated 14.11.2008 from LIC wherein some unjustified reasons for delay in the repayment of pension have been mentioned. It has further been pleaded that the pension for the remaining period was deposited in the bank account of OP without any intimation to him. According to the complainant, the aforesaid acts of omission and commission amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that OPs purchased annuity from LIC of India and it is LIC of India who is paying pension to the complainant. According to the OPs, on receipt of the representation from the complaint, the matter was immediately taken up with the LIC and the grievance of the complainant stands redressed. It has been admitted that occasionally, the receipt of pension was delayed. It has been asserted that the amount of cheques which were lost in transit was already received by the complainant and the amount thereof was credited to his ECS bank account where no collection charges are debited. Thus, there remains no substantial grievance of the complainant to be redressed. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of this Forum have also been taken. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. At the outset, it was argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. According to the learned counsel neither the complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor the disbursement of the pension amounts to rendering of service in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, the complainant was an employee of OP-Company and there is dispute relating to the service matter. So the present complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has cited the case titled as Central Bank of India Vs. Dil Bahadur Singh reported in 1994(1) CLT-46 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:- “5. Still not being satisfied, the petitioner has come before us by way of this revision petition. After hearing the parties and going trough the records, we are of the opinion that the dispute in question does not fall within the purview of the Act. The claim of the respondent-complainant was about the non-payment of provident fund to him. Of course, the provident fund cannot be retained by the employer, but for that matter the proper remedy for the claimant was to approach a Civil Court. Payment of provident fund can by no stretch of imagination be said to be "rendering of service" under the Act. Of course in the present case the employer was the Bank, but the payment of provident fund does not relate to "banking service" which service has been included in the definition of "service" as given in Clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act”. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and disbursement of pension is a service as defined under section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of his contention, the learned counsel citied the cases titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in III(1999) CPJ-36 (NC) and Kerala State Coop. Employees Pension Board Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Iddukki and another reported in 2004 (1) CLT-448. 7. The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Act”) has been enacted to provide for the institution of provident fund, pension and deposit-linked insurance funds for employees working in factories and other establishments. Under Section 5 of the said act, the Central Government has been authorised to frame a scheme to be called the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishments of provident funds under this Act for employees or for any other class of employees and specify the establishment or class of establishments to which the said scheme shall apply. 8. Similarly in the case titled as Kerala State Coop. Employees Pension Board’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held as under:- “18. In the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the Board constituted under Clause 4 for administration of the Pension Fund under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Scheme, 1994 is providing ‘service’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The retired employees of the Co-operative societies who are members of the Pension Scheme, 1994 are consumers as defined under the Act. Therefore, Ext. P1 complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.” 9. In both the cases cited above, a separate board had been constituted to disburse pension to the beneficiaries under the schemes framed under the Provident Fund Act and Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Scheme, 1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble Kerala High Court were pleased to hold that disbursement of pension or provident fund by the above said authorities is a service and the employees seeking pension/provident fund are consumers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble Kerala High Court reached the above said conclusions after going through the schemes under the said Acts which provides creation of funds for disbursement of provident fund/pension and it was held that the services of Provident Fund Commissioner and Board have been hired by the respective Governments for the benefit of the employees who are beneficiaries of the schemes. Therefore, the said authorities are providing service to the employees who are consumers. 10. However, in the present case, no scheme has been placed on record to prove that the complainant is a consumer and disbursement of pension to him amounts to service. Disbursement of pension does not relate to insurance service. In these circumstances, the ratio of case titled Central Bank of India’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case in hand. 11. In view of the above findings, this complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 02.06.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
